Talk:Guy Vardaman
For the record, much of this information was obtained from Vardaman himself through a personal e-mail sent to Jorg, who then sent it to me. I am unsure how to cite personal e-mails in the article, though, so I'll just make note of it here. Any information not taken from Vardaman's messages (such as all of his appearances as Wallace) was the result of extensive research by Jorg. --From Andoria with Love 03:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Moved from Guy Vardaman A collaboration between Jorg and myself, with information provided by Vardaman himself. This is a man who has done it all and whose story, I believe, is greatly covered in this article, which also expounds his many contributions to the Star Trek universe. Incredibly detailed and with a proper number of images for illustration, the article provides information not only on Vardaman, but also offers a behind-the-scenes look at certain processes of television production that most people probably never knew existed. It informs the reader on both the individual and his career, which is what a good encyclopedia article should do. Special thanks go to Vardaman, of course. :) --From Andoria with Love 00:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC) *'Support', obviously. ;) --From Andoria with Love 00:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC) *'Support', Shran has summed it up all. :-) --Jörg 08:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC) *Great work, and how could I not support an article that says: "He was even Beverly Crusher's torso once."? :D -- Cid Highwind 09:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC) *'Support'. Wow, amazing detail, and lots of great info. --OuroborosCobra talk 12:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC) *'Support' per reasons above. -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 20:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC) *'Support' because I rock-scissor-papered myself and my left hand won! Right hand always picks paper. --Bp (mirror) 22:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC) **Unfortunetly, the above user does not meet the requirements to be eligeable to vote, namely registered for 2 weeks and at least 20 major contributions (he only has 3 total contributions). --OuroborosCobra talk 23:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC) ***I'm not sure you have 20 major contributions if you want to be technical about it. I don't think those star system articles really count as major; they may not even need to exist. Nice job on multitronic though. Anyway, Support the Vardaman thing. :) --Bp 01:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC) ****Let's not turn this into an attack on each other's edits, that won't end well. The other username had only 3 total edits, I have 1569. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Galaxy Quest I wonder if the character "Guy Fleegman", a background extra, from Galaxy Quest was a reference to Guy Vardaman. --Bp 17:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC) :Yeah, it was. --Bp 16:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC) ::Thanks. --Bp 16:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC) :::Crap, sorry, forgot to reply here after adding the info. Yes, Jorg verified that the character was named after Vardaman. Kudos to you for bringing it up. ;) --From Andoria with Love 08:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC) ::::Yes, kudos to me indeed. Actually, Jorg sent me a mail about it and told me to add it to the article if I wanted, but I never thought of a good way to write it. I see you didn't either. :p --Bp 09:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC) So what's a photo double? Not counting times when the character appears alongside his own self (think time travel/mirror universe) or his own twin, when/why is a photo double necessary? Shall someone start an article? Be good to do this soon - the "article of the week" (which will be there for four, if it's anything like the last 2) shouldn't have redlinks in it, if you ask me. Me being 02:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC) : Also not counting times when the character is doing something that requires a trained stunt double. 02:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC) :: A photo double is a person who stands in for another actor when it is not entirely necessary for that actor to be present. For example, a photo double may fill in for an actor's hands or the back of his head. Basically, little things that other people do so the actor can relax in his trailer. :P And it doesn't matter how many red-links an article has – all that matters is the quality of the article and its content. Red links are red because that page hasn't been created yet; good pages do not suffer just because there are links to unwritten pages on them. That, quite frankly, would be stupid. ;) --From Andoria with Love 04:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC) ::: Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks redlinks convey a certain je ne sais quoi 05:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC) ::::That was back in January, there are currently are no and haven't been any redlinks on the Main Page for quite some time.--Tim Thomason 05:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC) :: Oh, on the Main Page, sure. We try to keep red links off of there. I thought you were referring to the articles themselves. My bad. Still, not placing a page as "article of the week" simply because it has some red links... yeah, that just doesn't make sense. ;) --From Andoria with Love 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC) ::: I wasn't saying Guy shouldn't have the article of the week. I just wanted to know what "photo double" means. You know what? I don't even think MA needs a photo double article. I just do want to know what a photo double is, myself. I googled the hell out of it and all I find is a trillion actors' resumes saying they did it. MA does have info about the television production process in some different places, particularly in the pages on the persons who did the particular jobs. Many production roles don't really NEED an explanation: "Actor", "director", "stunt double", "camera operator". It would be kind of nice if I could read this guy's article and find out one way or another, in this article or some other, what the heck he did and why they had him do it. I am sorry for teasing before by making the redlink 02:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC) :::: That information can be found on .--Tim Thomason 02:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC) :::::Cool, man, thanks. That just about explains it. So, we still don't want to include the link? 03:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)